The matrimonial litigation in the country has increased significantly in recent times and there is a 'greater disaffection and friction' surrounding the institution of marriage now, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday.
This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as instruments to 'settle personal scores' against the husband and his relatives, the apex court observed.
Section 498-A of the IPC deals with the offence of subjecting a woman to cruelty by the husband or his relatives.
A bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari said the apex court had on numerous instances expressed concern over the 'misuse' of Section 498-A.
The bench quashed an FIR lodged in Bihar by a woman against some of her in-laws for allegedly subjecting her to cruelty, observing that allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against them would simply result in an abuse of the process of law.
The apex court delivered the verdict on an appeal against the November 2019 order of the Patna high court which had dismissed a plea filed by the husband and some of his relatives who were seeking quashing of the FIR lodged against them in April 2019 for alleged offences, including under section 498-A of the IPC.
The high court had observed that the averments made in the FIR prima facie disclosed commission of an offence and therefore, the matter was required to be probed by the police.
In its judgment, the top court observed that incorporation of section 498-A of the IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid state intervention.
'However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever,' the bench said in its 15-page verdict.
'This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498-A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives,' it said.
While referring to some previous verdict delivered by the apex court, the bench said the top court had expressed concern over the misuse of section 498-A of IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long-term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as accused.
'It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law,' it said.
'Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them,' the bench noted.
The top court, which was dealing with the appeal filed by the in-laws of the woman who had lodged the case, observed that perusal of the contents of FIR revealed that general allegations were levelled against the appellants.
'The complainant alleged that 'all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy'. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the appellants herein, i.e., none of the appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them,' it said.
The bench said the allegations are general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on 'account of small skirmishes'.
It said since the husband has not challenged the high court order, it has not examined the veracity of allegations made against him.
The apex court also noted that similar allegations of harassment and demand for car as dowry were made by the woman in a previous FIR lodged in 2017.
'Here it must be borne in mind that although the two FIRs may constitute two independent instances, based on separate transactions, the present complaint fails to establish specific allegations against the in-laws of the respondent wife,' the bench said.
The bench said that in the absence of any specific role attributed to the appellants, it would be unjust if they are forced to go through the 'tribulations of a trial'.
'It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged,' it said, while setting aside the high court order.
The bench noted that the complainant had married in September 2017 and in December 2017, she had instituted a criminal complaint against her husband and some of his relatives before a court in Purnea district alleging demand for dowry and harassment.
The court in Purnea had concluded that no prima-facie case was made against the in-laws.
However, the court had taken cognisance of the offences including under Section 498-A of the IPC against the husband and issued summons.
Later, the dispute was resolved and woman had come back to her matrimonial home.
Subsequently in April 2019, she gave another written complaint for registration of FIR against her husband and some of his relatives alleging that they were pressurising her to purchase a car as dowry and had threatened to forcibly terminate her pregnancy if the demands were not met.
